Comrade Kamenev has cleverly seized upon the theme of adventurism. It is necessary to dwell on this. Comrade Kamenev is convinced and asserts that, in speaking against the slogan "Down with the Provisional Government," we displayed wavering. I agree with him: wavering from the line of revolutionary politics certainly occurred, and such wavering must be avoided. I think our disagreements with Comrade Kamenev are not very significant, because, agreeing with us, he takes up a different position. In what did our adventurism consist? It was an attempt to resort to violent measures. We did not know whether the masses at that anxious moment had swung strongly in our direction, and the question would be different if they had swung strongly. We gave the slogan of peaceful demonstrations, but some comrades from the Petersburg Committee gave a different slogan, which we annulled, but failed to stop in time—the masses followed the slogan of the PC. We say that the slogan "Down with the Provisional Government" is adventurist, that we cannot overthrow the government now, and therefore we gave the slogan of peaceful demonstrations. We wished to conduct only a peaceful reconnaissance of the enemy's forces, but not to give battle{147}, whereas the PC went a bit further to the left, which in this case is, of course, an extraordinary crime. The organizational apparatus proved insufficiently firm: not everyone carries out our resolutions. Together with the correct slogan "Long live the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies!" an incorrect one was given: "Down with the Provisional Government." At the moment of action, to go "a bit further to the left" was inappropriate. We regard this as the greatest crime, as disorganization. We would not have remained in the CC for a single minute if we had consciously permitted this step. This happened because of the imperfection of the organizational apparatus. Yes, our organization had shortcomings. The question has been raised concerning the improvement of the organization.

The Mensheviks and Company chatter about the word "adventurism," but they, truly, had neither organization nor any line. We have an organization and we have a line.

At that moment the bourgeoisie mobilized all its forces, the center went into hiding, while we organized a peaceful demonstration. The political line belonged only to us. Were there errors? Yes, there were. Only he who does not act makes no errors. And to organize well—that is a difficult matter.

Now concerning control.

Comrade Kamenev and I proceed together, except on the question of control. He sees in it a political act. But he understands this word subjectively better than Chkheidze and others. We will not go in for control. They tell us: you have isolated yourselves, you have spoken terrible words about communism, frightened the bourgeoisie to death… So be it!.. But this is not what isolated us. We were isolated by the question of the loan—that is what led us to isolation. That is the question on which we found ourselves in the minority. Yes, we are in the minority. Well, what of it! In this time of chauvinistic frenzy, to be a socialist is to be in the minority, while to be in the majority means to be a chauvinist. Now the peasant, together with Milyukov, beats down socialism with the loan. The peasant follows Milyukov and Guchkov. That is a fact. A bourgeois-democratic dictatorship of the peasantry—that is the old formula.

To push the peasantry toward revolution, one must separate the proletariat, single out the proletarian party, for the peasantry is chauvinistic. To attract the muzhik now means to surrender to Milyukov's mercy.

The Provisional Government must be overthrown, but not now and not by ordinary means. We agree with Comrade Kamenev. But one must explain this. It is on this word that Comrade Kamenev has fastened. Nevertheless, this is the only thing we can do.

Comrade Rykov says that socialism must come from other countries, with more developed industry. But that is not so. One cannot say who will begin and who will finish. This is not Marxism, but a parody of Marxism.

Marx said that France would begin and the German would finish. And yet the Russian proletariat has achieved more than anyone.

Now, if we were to say: "No tsar, but the dictatorship of the proletariat"—well, that would be a leap over the petty bourgeoisie. But we say: help the revolution through the Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. One cannot slide into reformism. We conduct our struggle not to be defeated, but to emerge victorious; in the worst case, we reckon on partial success. If we suffer defeat, we shall achieve partial success. These will be reforms. Reforms are an auxiliary means for class struggle.

Further, Comrade Rykov says that there is no transitional period between capitalism and socialism. That is not so. This is a break with Marxism.

The line we have outlined is correct, and in the future we shall take all measures to achieve such an organization that there will be no Pekists who do not listen to the CC. We are growing as befits a true party.

First published in 1921 in the Collected Works of N. Lenin (V. Ulyanov), vol. XIV, part II

Printed from a typewritten copy of the protocol record